North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: mail does bounce (was: Customers down?)
- From: Owen DeLong
- Date: Sun Jan 02 20:32:43 2000
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 12:31:00PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Attempting to resolve a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i
> > If you get back a return value from DNS that says
> > "Authoritative answer, a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i does not exist"
> > Bounce the mail.
> > If you get back a return that says
> > "Resolving a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i timed out without a return"
> > Queue the mail.
> > This also works for i, h.i, g.h.i, f.g.h.i, etc.
> I agree that this is the most sensible minimum functionality. What do you
> break if you treat what you consider persistent terminal conditions as
Usually, if I send something to email@example.com instead of firstname.lastname@example.org,
I get a bounce back before I depart my MUA. You would break that.
> Perhaps your business policy is to deliver all mail that can possibly be
> delivered, making the assumption that everything's transient unless the system
> has what it considers reasonable proof that it is indeed permanent (after
> for instance several attempts spread out over a period of time).
I think that an authoritative nameserver saying "I know for certain that domain
xyz doesn't exist." is reasonable proof that an error requiring intervention
> Personally, I don't like systems which do not have backup paths to deal with
> transient conditions. And we do know that even "authoritative does not exist"
> can be a transient error condition caused by a registry glitch etc. Sure, we
> can all just ignore reality and assume we live in a perfect world, but....
But a registry glitch is an error requiring intervention, therefore, I would much
rather receive my mail back immediately so that I can intervene, than have it
sit there while everything else breaks hoping that it will eventually clear
> Christian Kuhtz Architecture, BellSouth.net
> <email@example.com> -wk, <firstname.lastname@example.org> -hm Atlanta, GA
> "Speaking for myself only."